What the Triangle Fire Teaches Us about Regulation

I just watched the CNN documentary on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of March 25, 1911. When our industries and corporations chaff under the burden of government regulation and while Congress fights to roll regulation back, we might do well to remember this ugly episode.

It was in the aftermath of this horrific fire that many of the fire safety regulations we take for granted were instituted. It was as a result of this tragedy that many of our on-the-job safety regulations were enacted into law.

Death did not come easy to the fire's victims. It was not pretty. Not unlike the 9/11 victims in the twin towers, they faced the cruel choice of burning alive or jumping to their deaths. Many of the victims were burnt beyond recognition and were identified by the charred remains of their clothing, the way their hair was braided or the possessions they clutched as they died. Most of the dead were women, many of them barely adults, some of them still children. They were poor, hardworking members of immigrant families and worked 12-14 hour days for less than a living wage. Their deaths shattered the lives of sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, husbands and friends. Many died because one of the exit doors had been locked, forcing workers to use one exit as they came off shift so management could make sure they were not stealing material from the factory.

They died because there were no fire escapes. They died because the fire truck ladders could not reach to the ninth floor. They died because they had never practised fire drills. They died because they were crowded into the factory as thick as could be to maximize production.

The factory owners collected insurance for the damage. The families of the dead workers went on as best they could without their loved ones. The factory owners were acquitted of manslaughter (for that locked exit door) by a jury of their peers. The last, unidentifiable bodies of the victims were buried without fanfare by the city, despite protests by the unions.

As we witness the sickness striking down workers who tried to control the BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico; as we watch the utility employees in Japan desperately attempting to avert a nuclear catastrophe and suffering from radiation poisoning; as we listen to accounts of one coal mining disaster after another in mines owned by corporations that have been cited for safety violations over and over again, only to receive a mere slap on the wrist for those violations, let us not forget that without regulation, corporations adopt a risk/reward scenario that DOES NOT include human cost but only monetary return.

Abandoning regulation of our food, drugs, occupational safety, environmental safety, water safety is a RECIPE for DISASTER.

Congress's Responsibility to Fund Public Radio and TV

Congress has a responsibility to insure public radio and television are funded. Why? Because, by permitting the global media giants to swallow up the rest of the market between them through mergers and acquisitions, Congress has had a direct hand in eliminating competition and diversity in media.

Does anyone else remember when Bravo broadcast creative, original programming? Now it's all about rich, self-absorbed, spoiled, shallow housewives of various geographic locations - perhaps the most misogynistic programming on television today. A&E used to be innovative; TLC, Discovery and Nat Geo used to be educational. Now much of their programming is pseudo educational pap sporting cheap production values and questionable science, with a few quality programs providing weak lip service to their original missions.

The excuse that public funding is inappropriate does not hold water. The for-profit media have repeatedly been given advantages of bandwidth and permitted to spread their tentacles across local markets in direct violation of anti-trust laws. Independent for-profits are rapidly disappearing as they are consumed by the media oligarchy, resulting in homogenized, mediocre fare.

Public radio and television consistently provide quality programming. Their news coverage tends to be more comprehensive and more impartial than the for-profit media, despite what their detractors claim. They frequently provide the only source for solid local and regional news coverage. Programs like "The American Experience" and "The National Parks" are excellent examples of American history made interesting as well as educational. The loss of these resources would further the dumbing down of the American public.

Hey, I have a great idea. Instead of funding public radio and public television out of the general fund, why not levy a specific tax on for-profit media conglomerates to fund them? I can hear the squeals of protest already. But why shouldn't those media monopolies pay a bit back for the tremendous corporate advantages they have received?

The playing field is not level. There is no true competition in the for-profit media. Let's not pretend there is.

Thunder and Lightning - War as Theater

Forget Japan's nuclear crisis, the huge public demonstrations of discontent in Madison, Wisconsin, the stubborn persistence of the Great Recession, the grinding frustration of the war in Afghanistan, the destabilization of Pakistan, we are bombing again! Look at the spectacular light show. Listen to the crackle and boom of air attacks on Libya.

We had to do this you say? Kadafi was mowing down his own people. He is a nasty, awful criminal. True. Never mind that Iraq and Afghanistan have overtaxed our military and our fiscal stability. This initial stage of conflict is amazing to watch - dramatic, exciting, distracting. So what if there is no end game. Since when do we worry about THAT?

Not even a nod at Congress for approval this time. In fact, announcement of the actions in Libya was made almost as an aside during President Obama's state visit to Brazil. This time is different, you say? The United Nations initiated the intervention. Right. Because we always go along with United Nations policy and never use it as a propagandized prop.

I guess this puts an end to including the military in any budget cutting discussions?

Risk/Reward = Collateral Damage/Benefits

The experts keep reminding us that all sources of energy are dangerous, but society's needs outweigh the risks. As the narrative goes, nuclear energy has a great safety record and does not increase atmospheric carbon. Fracking is necessary to access our most abundance source of energy - natural gas. The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Solar and wind are impractical. The era of advanced science and high tech insures all these methods are as safe as possible.

Environmentalists appear to be nuclear energy's strongest advocates in the age of global warning. I would rebut that when accidents do occur, they are devastating and have wide-scale impact. I would add that safe storage of nuclear waste is an oxymoron. "Fixing" nuclear accidents requires incredible sacrifice from the workers assigned to do it.

Fracking endangers water supplies. Water - vital to life itself.

Oil drilling and transportation accidents have devastated large areas of our oceans and the chain of life they nurture.

Coal mining accidents frequently result in huge loss of life. Mountaintop removal destroys habitats, pollutes water supplies and the fuel adds to atmospheric carbon.

Few experts are heard questioning the foundation of our energy addiction. Not since President Carter have we made any attempt to decrease our energy dependence. When such a voice is heard, the speaker is viciously attacked. The least acceptable method of controlling the depredations caused by our thirst for ever more energy is SACRIFICE. The design of energy efficient communities is considered at best socialism, at worst communism. Those few persons who attempt to live their lives "off the grid" are categorized as eccentrics.

And yet, our highly industrialized society is continuously sacrificing. It is sacrificing bits and pieces, chunks and slabs of our life-support systems to our apparently insatiable appetite for consumables and the energy and resources they require.

Perhaps it is time to recalculate our risk/reward ratios? Perhaps it is time for a new paradigm?

High Tech Vulnerability

As we watch Japan stagger under repeated blows from mother nature and the sons of man, it is difficult to ignore the vulnerability of an advanced, high-tech society when its systems collapse. The crippling of Japan's nuclear power has had devastating impact on the entire country's ability to pick up the pieces of the disaster.

Rolling blackouts in unaffected areas. Countless refugees unable to come in from the cold. Savaged road networks hampering rescue and relief efforts. And over it all the dreadful specter of nuclear disaster.

Japan is one of the most modern nations in the world. A country connected by high speed rail and high speed Internet. A highly organized society and a heavily populated one. This earthquake-prone nation boasts perhaps the best earthquake-tolerant construction in the world. It did not skimp on materials or design when building its cities and infrastructure. But even its conscientious efforts to mitigate possible disasters have been damaged by the severity of the catastrophes assaulting it. The country's reliance on its high tech infrastructure could actually be working against it, at least in the short term.

I have heard countless "experts" claiming such a calamity is unlikely to happen in the U. S., as if we were somehow better prepared or positioned that the Japanese. Remembering the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it is difficult to give credence to these claims. Our own power grid is far from perfect and might well be vulnerable to cyber terrorism. And in the end, it was the failure of power that resulted in the critical situation(s) with Japanese nuclear reactors. Every back-up system failed. With each failure, cooling the rods became more difficult.

So while the experts assert our power plants are not vulnerable to earthquakes or tsunamis - questionable claims in and of themselves - I have heard no one addressing the security of the power grid that keeps the cooling mechanisms operating. I have heard no one discussing the challenges of evacuation of densely populated areas. I have heard no one suggesting that reworking our disaster plans from the bottom up to reflect the realities of today's overcrowded roadways and decaying infrastructures might be a good idea.

I believe we need totally new approaches to disaster preparedness that bring a fresh look to old problems. It should have been done after Katrina. It was not.

In the meantime, let's watch and learn from the Japanese experience while we do everything in our power to help them through this awful time.